coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1960. She died in June 2008. Her widower, Mr Kutsenko Oleh Mykolayovych, submitted that he wished to pursue the application.
5.  On 14 June 2000 the applicant lodged a claim with the Bahliyskyy District Court of Dniprodzerzhynsk (“the Bahliyskyy Court”) against the State Bailiffs’ Service. She sought compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage allegedly caused by lengthy non-enforcement of two judgments given in her favour against a State enterprise. The debtor State enterprise participated in the proceedings as a third party.
6.  On 10 July 2001 the Bahliyskyy Court found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs and rejected the applicant’s claims.
7.  On 26 November 2001 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 10 July 2001 because of the failure of the first‑instance court to assess all the circumstances of the case and to give reasons for its decision and remitted the case for fresh examination.
8.  On 25 September 2003 the Bahliyskyy Court rejected the applicant’s claims. It noted that the judgments of 15 March 2000 and 25 February 2001 had been enforced in full on 6 July 2000 and 5 April 2002, respectively, and found no fault on the part of the Bailiffs for the alleged lengthy enforcement of the judgments.
9.  On 30 June 2004 the Dnipropetrovsk Regional Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal which she had to re-submit on two occasions in order to comply with procedural requirements and upheld the judgment of 25 September 2003.
10.  On 26 July 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.
11.  On 29 May 2007 the Crimea Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, found no grounds to review the applicant’s case in cassation.
12.  In the course of the proceedings before the first-instance court the applicant supplemented her claims on four occasions. Six times the proceedings were adjourned on the applicant’s request or because of her or her representative’s failure to appear which in total caused a delay of about six months. Sixteen times the proceedings were adjourned because of other participants’ (respondent, third party, experts) failure to appear or on their requests and on two occasions because of the absence of the judge which in total caused a delay of one year and five months.
5.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Ankara. He is the owner of “Yurt Books and Publishing”, a small independent firm that has published numerous books in Turkey.
6.  In the 1990s a number of books published by the applicant's company were found to contain propaganda in breach of various provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law no. 3712), as well as “insults to the memory of Atatürk” in breach of Law no. 5816. He was convicted and served a total period of one year, five months and twenty days in prison and paid the equivalent of 5,121 euros (EUR) in fines. Most of the books in question were confiscated. On 21 December 1994 he introduced an application with the Court in relation to that conviction and the confiscation of the books. On 4 October 2005 the Court found a violation of Articles 7 and 10 of the Convention (see Ünsal Öztürk v. Turkey, no. 29365/95, 4 October 2005).
7.  Following the repeal of section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act in July 2003, the applicant made applications to the First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court on various dates in 2003 and asked for the confiscation orders to be lifted.
8.  The First Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court rejected the claims and the applicant lodged objections against those rejections with the Second Chamber of the same court.
9.  The Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court lifted the confiscation orders in respect of a number of the books but held that, as the confiscation orders had already been executed, there were no books to return.
10.  On 9 January 2004 the Second Chamber of the Ankara State Security Court held in respect of sixteen books that, although section 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act had been repealed, the contents of those books amounted not only to “separatist propaganda” but were also unlawful “under various laws”, and rejected the objection.
11.  On 22 November 2005 a further decision was adopted by the Ankara Assize Court in respect of the same sixteen books. Having regard “to the legislation in force” and “considering that the contents of the books might be in contravention of section 7(2) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act” it refused the applicant's request for the lifting of the confiscation order in respect of the sixteen books.
12.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 22 November 2005. The prosecutor at the Court of Cassation also requested that the decision be quashed because he considered that rejecting the applicant's request on account of the assumption that the contents of the books “might be unlawful”, rather than examining the substance of the applicant's request in the light of the legal developments, was not in accordance with the law and procedure.
13.  On 8 April 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant.
4.  The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 20 June 1996 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, seeking the review of a resolution adopted by the community of flatowners of the house in which she lives.
6.  Following several hearings and an interruption of two years due to the death of two of the respondents, the District Court delivered a judgment on 27 May 2004.
7.  On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court adopted a partial judgment concerning the substitution of a legal statement, while remitting some claims on 24 June 2005.
8.  In the resumed proceedings the first instance court discontinued the proceedings on 25 March 2008. However, the review bench of the Supreme Court quashed this decision and instructed the first instance court to resume the proceedings.
9.  On 15 December 2009 the District Court gave judgment which was appealed by the applicant. The proceedings are now pending before the Budapest Regional Court.
10.  On 4 April 2000 the applicant brought an action against several private individuals before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish the invalidity of yet another resolution of the flatowners.
11.  On 5 October 2004 the District Court gave judgment, finding partly for the applicant. On appeal, on 12 October 2005 the Budapest Regional Court gave judgment. On 17 January 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's petition for review.
5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Willstät, Germany.
6.  The applicant was a minority shareholder in Sokolovská uhelná, a.s. (“the company”), a joint-stock company incorporated under Czech law.
7.  On 4 May 2005 the general meeting of the company adopted, by a vote of the main shareholder, a resolution on the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder.
8.  On 25 June 2005 the applicant lodged with the Plzeň Regional Court (krajský soud) an action to have the resolution set aside, asserting that it had been adopted contrary to applicable law, bilateral investment treaties and her property rights. She also asserted that the law on which the resolution had been based was itself unconstitutional. At the same time, she informed the court administering the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík) about her action and asked it not to allow the entry in the register of the winding up of the company and the transfer of all its assets to the main shareholder until the legality of the resolution had been decided by the Regional Court. These set-aside proceedings are still pending.
9.  The applicant received cash compensation based on the value of her shares as at 31 December 2001. The amount of compensation was based on an evaluation made by an expert appointed by a court on the proposal of the main shareholder.
10.  On 30 June 2005 the court in charge of the Companies Register approved the registration of the transfer and the deletion of the company from the Companies Register. No hearing was held prior to that decision, which was not served on the applicant as she did not have standing to participate in the proceedings.
11.  On 11 July 2005 the Prague High Court (vrchní soud) rejected the applicant's appeal contesting the above-mentioned decision. It ruled that since the applicant did not have standing to take part in the impugned proceedings, she was not entitled to appeal their outcome.
12.  On 11 May 2006 the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) rejected the applicant's constitutional appeal, in which she claimed an impairment of her right to a fair trial and the right to property in relation to the companies register proceedings on the basis that (i) she had not been allowed to be a party to those proceedings as a result of the application of Article 220h(4) of the Commercial Code and (ii) that this had created an irreversible situation. The Constitutional Court rejected the appeal as manifestly ill-founded, holding that the Commercial Code had not impaired her right of access to court because, apart from the companies register proceedings, there were other proceedings available to the applicant in which she could have asserted her rights. It further held that the applicant's claims that such other proceedings would not guarantee adequate protection of her rights could not be reviewed, because the present appeal had been directed only against the decisions in the companies register proceedings.
4.  The applicants were born in 1963, 1983 and 1988, respectively, and live in Makariv. Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko is the mother of the other two applicants.
5.  From 1987 onwards Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko lived in a house together with Mr M., her husband, Mrs O.N., her mother in law, and Ms Svitlana Marchenko. In 1988 Ms Bozhena Marchenko was born. In 1989 Mrs O.N. acquired a property title over the said house. In 1992 Mr M. died. In 2000 Mrs O.N. concluded a deed of gift with Mr O.O. and transferred the ownership over the house to him.
6.  In August 2000 Ms Lyudmyla Marchenko instituted proceedings in the Makariv Court against Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. on her own behalf and on behalf of the other two applicants seeking division of the house and partial invalidation of the deed of gift.
7.  On 20 October 2000 the court ordered a forensic examination and suspended the proceedings.
8.  Having received the results of the examination on 3 May 2001, the court resumed the proceedings on 28 May 2001.
9.  On 6 August 2001 the court found in part for the applicants.
10.  On 31 August 2001 Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. appealed.
11.  On 12 October and 14 December 2001 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal returned the appeal to the first instance court due to procedural shortcomings. On 6 November and 16 December 2001 the first instance court allowed the appellants time to rectify their appeal. Finally, on 13 February 2002 the first instance court rejected that appeal without examination due to its procedural shortcomings.
12.  On 21 May 2002 the court of appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first instance court for a decision on the admissibility of the appeal lodged by Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O.
13.  Following a decision on admissibility, on 1 July 2002 the Makariv Court sent the appeal to the court of appeal for consideration.
14.  On 11 October 2002 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 6 August 2001 and remitted the case to the Makariv Court for a fresh consideration.
15.  On 18 April 2003 the court suspended the proceedings in the case upon the applicants' request.
16.  On 22 August 2003 the Makariv Court ordered resumption of the proceedings.
17.  On 13 February 2004 the court found in the applicants' favour.
18.  On 10 March 2004 Mrs O.N. and Mr O.O. appealed. On 4 June 2004 the court of appeal quashed the first instance court judgment and found against the applicants.
19.  On 5 July 2004 the applicants appealed in cassation.
20.  On 9 November 2006 the Supreme Court rejected that appeal as unsubstantiated.
21.  Out of sixteen hearings in the case four were adjourned upon the applicants' request or due to their failure to appear, four were adjourned upon the respondents' requests or due to their failure to appear, and three were adjourned due to the necessity to call a witness or to examine proof or information.
5.  The applicant was born in 1946.
6.  The applicant lived in a house in Plovdiv situated in the same yard as the house of Ms N.K. The applicant’s family had bad relations with Ms N.K.’s family.
7.  On 27 July 1996 a quarrel erupted in the yard between Ms N.K., accompanied by friends of hers, and the applicant, accompanied by some relatives. The quarrel grew into a fight between the two groups. According to the applicant, one of Ms N.K.’s friends entered the applicant’s house to prevent her husband from calling the police. Allegedly, one of Ms N.K.’s friends had a gun and threatened to kill the applicant.
8.  On 27 July 1996 the applicants filed a complaint with the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office describing the events of the same day and requesting that Ms N.K. and her companions be prosecuted. In September 1996 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office opened criminal proceedings. However, until August 1999 it did not take any investigative action.
9.  In August and September 1999 the prosecuting authorities questioned the applicant and several other witnesses.
10.  On an unspecified date Ms N.K. was charged with having threatened the applicant and having, together with other persons, forcibly entered into her house.
11.  On 9 August 1999 the applicant filed with the investigator in charge of the case a civil claim against Ms N.K., seeking 3,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in non-pecuniary damages. On the same day, by a decision of the investigator, the applicant was formally admitted as a civil party in the criminal proceedings.
12.  Between 1999 and 2004 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings against Ms N.K. on two occasions, finding that she had committed no publicly prosecutable offences. However, on both occasions its decisions were quashed upon appeals by the applicant, either by the Plovdiv appellate public prosecutor’s office or by the Plovdiv District Court, which remitted the case for further investigation. During that period the prosecuting authorities questioned several more witnesses.
13.  On 3 June 2004 the Plovdiv district public prosecutor’s office discontinued the proceedings once again, on the ground that the time-limit for prosecuting the offences Ms N.K. had been charged with had expired. That decision was upheld by the Plovdiv District Court on 25 June 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Kherson.
5.  On 18 August 1998 she lodged a claim with the Komsomolsky District Court of Kherson (“the District Court”) against the Komsomolsky District Hospital of Kherson seeking compensation for occupational illness and non-pecuniary damage.
6.  Between 23 September 1998 and 22 February 2005, the applicant lodged seven additional claims that were joined to the main one amounting overall to UAH 102,225 (14,312 euros, EUR)[1].
7.  On 15 June 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal (“the Regional Court of Appeal”) seeking to speed up the proceedings in her case. There is no indication whether and, if so, how the court replied.
8.  At a hearing of 21 November 2005 the District Court, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer, partly allowed the applicant's claims. On 14 December 2005 the applicant informed the District Court that she could not attend the hearing due to her sickness.
9.  On 4 April 2006 the Regional Court of Appeal, in the presence of the applicant's lawyer, upheld this judgment. On 31 May 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation.
10.  By a final ruling of 26 September 2006, sent to the applicant on 10 October 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' decisions.
11.  According to the Government, between 18 August 1998 and 26 September 2006, there were about twenty four hearings scheduled in the case and three expert examinations ordered. During the same period of time, the applicant filed three procedural requests and six appeals, of which one appeal was returned to the applicant after the period of fifty days during which the applicant had failed to amend it.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Byshiv.
5.  On an unspecified date in April 1998 he lodged an action against a collective farm B., seeking damages for a discrepancy in the calculation of compensation for his professional illness that had been paid since 1982. On 9 April 1998 the Makariv District Court (“the District Court”) opened proceedings.
6.  In a judgment of 28 December 1998 it dismissed the applicant's action. On 6 April 1999 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that judgment and ordered a fresh hearing.
7.  On 20 April 2000 the District Court ordered an accounting expert examination. It held the next hearing on 2 June 2003.
8.  On 4 July 2003 the Makariv Department of State Insurance Fund for Industrial Accidents and Diseases (“the Fund”) joined the proceedings as a second respondent and B. was replaced by its legal successor, private company L.
9.  On 21 October 2003 the District Court dismissed the applicant's claim for damages that after a modification amounted to UAH 16,018 (EUR 2,563[1]). On 9 January 2004 the Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 9 February 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation.
10.  On 17 May 2006 the Supreme Court rejected his appeal in cassation.
11.  According to the Government, in the course of the proceedings, the applicant filed one procedural request and three appeals, one of which did not meet procedural requirements. Out of the sixteen hearings scheduled between April 1998 and May 2006, six were adjourned for unknown reasons, two were adjourned either at the applicant's request or due to his failure to attend, one was adjourned due to one of the respondents' failure to attend, one was adjourned for the parties to reach a friendly settlement, and two were adjourned for other reasons beyond parties' control.
5.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Helsinki.
6.  The applicant was under suspicion of having organised illegal immigration (laittoman maahanmuuton järjestäminen, ordnande av olaglig inresa). The pre-trial investigation in her case was conducted by the criminal investigators of the Finnish Border Guard (Rajavartiolaitos, Gränsbevakningsväsendet) who, inter alia, conducted a search at her domicile on 9 July 2009 at 10 p.m. The applicant was not at home at the time of the search. She was not contacted about the search nor was her counsel informed about the search. During the search her computer, among other items, was seized.
7.  When the applicant returned home later that night, she found a handwritten note indicating that the Finnish Border Guard criminal investigators had searched her apartment and that some items had been seized.
8.  According to the records of the search and seizure, dated 11 July 2009, the seized materials, with the exception of the computer, were returned to the applicant on that same date.
9.  The applicant was later questioned as a suspect.
5.  The applicant was born in 1971 and was detained in the Üsküdar prison as at the time of his application to the Court.
6.  On 6 January 1993 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party, an illegal organisation).
7.  On 13 January 1993 he was brought before a single judge at the Istanbul Security Court who remanded him in custody.
8.  On 25 January 1993 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment against the applicant and seventeen other people. The applicant was charged with membership of the PKK under Article 168 of the former Criminal Code.
9.  On 10 October 2001 the Istanbul State Security Court, after having held ten hearings, found the applicant guilty of activities carried out for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. The applicant was sentenced to death, commuted to life imprisonment.
10.  On 12 February 2002 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court on the grounds that the Istanbul State Security Court had found that the applicant had committed certain acts which had not been included in the indictment of 25 January 1993.
11.  On 12 September 2002 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an additional indictment against the applicant, containing allegations that the applicant had committed the acts referred to in the State Security Court’s judgment of 10 October 2001.
12.  On 5 November 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court once again convicted the applicant under Article 125 of the former Criminal Code. (This judgment was not submitted to the Court).
13.  On 12 April 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of 5 November 2003.
14.  On 23 September 2004 the Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicant’s request for rectification of the decision of 12 April 2004.
15.  On 19 November 2003 the Prison Disciplinary Board seized a letter written by the applicant and addressed to the “President of the United Kingdom” with a view to destroying it, considering that it “would stir up trouble” (“sakıncalı” in Turkish).
16.  On 3 December 2003 the applicant lodged an objection to the decision of 19 November 2003 with the Üsküdar Post-Sentencing Judge.
17.  On 10 December 2003 the Üsküdar Post-Sentencing Judge upheld the Prison Disciplinary Board’s decision. The judge held that the letter had been written as propaganda in favour of the PKK terrorist organisation and its leader, because it contained allegations that Abdullah Öcalan had been pressurised and isolated in prison.
18.  On 25 December 2003 the Üsküdar Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection to the decision of 10 December 2003.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Košice.
5.  On 30 January 2002 the applicant initiated divorce proceedings and asked the Košice II District Court to determine her and her husband's rights and duties in respect of their minor daughters.
6.  On 7 April 2006 the District Court adopted a judgment in the case.
7.  On 19 April 2006 the applicant lodged a length of proceedings complaint with the Constitutional Court.
8.  The District Court's judgment was served on the applicant on 12 May 2006 and, in the absence of an appeal, it became final on 4 July 2006.
9.  On 13 September 2006 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded. It held that the District Court, by adopting the judgment and delivering it to the parties, had taken all required steps in order to eliminate the state of the applicant's legal uncertainty. This role of the District Court had ended by adopting the decision on the merits, that is before the complaint was lodged with the Constitutional Court. This decision became final on 4 July 2006 and the District Court could not deal with the merits of the case after the initiation of the constitutional proceedings. It was the Constitutional Court's practice to protect one's right to a hearing without unjustified delay only if the length of proceedings complaint was lodged at a time when the alleged violation still persisted. The decision was served on the applicant's lawyer on 19 October 2006.